Seniority Dispute in Andhra Pradesh Judiciary: Supreme Court’s Verdict

The Supreme Court of India, in the case of V. Venkata Prasad & Ors. vs. High Court of A.P. & Ors., addressed a long-standing dispute over the seniority of judicial officers in Andhra Pradesh. The case primarily revolved around the appointment and promotion of District and Sessions Judges and their placement in the seniority list.

The appellants were initially appointed as District Munsifs in Andhra Pradesh Judicial Service between 1985 and 1987. Over time, they were promoted as Sub-Judges and subsequently recommended for promotion to the post of District and Sessions Judge, Grade II. Their appointments were temporarily notified on 4.5.2002.

Background of the Case

The case originated when the Andhra Pradesh government, based on a communication from the Registrar General of the High Court, sanctioned additional posts to establish Fast Track Courts. The appointments made under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for Adhoc Appointments, 2001 (2001 Rules) became the focal point of the dispute.

The key rule under contention was Rule 6 of the 2001 Rules, which specified that inter-se seniority of the promotees from Senior Civil Judges to the cadre of District and Sessions Judges should be determined based on their original seniority at the time of appointment.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The appellants contended that:

• Their appointments were made by the Governor under Rule 5(1) on the recommendations of the High Court, making them regular appointees.
• Since their initial appointments were made according to the rules, their seniority should be counted from the date of their first appointment.
• The posting orders by the High Court should not affect their substantive appointment status.
• They had served continuously without any break and thus should be considered senior to direct recruits.

Respondent’s Arguments

The respondents, on the other hand, argued that:

• The appellants were appointed temporarily in Fast Track Courts, which were ad hoc in nature.
• Their appointment under the 2001 Rules did not grant them seniority benefits over direct recruits appointed through regular recruitment.
• The Supreme Court had earlier ruled in Brij Mohanlal – II v. Union of India that Fast Track Court appointments were purely temporary and would not confer any right to absorption or seniority.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of the 1958 Rules governing the Andhra Pradesh Higher Judicial Service and the 2001 Rules, which dealt specifically with ad hoc appointments. The Court noted that:

• Appointments made under the Fast Track Courts scheme were temporary and would not confer any regular benefits.
• Direct recruits were appointed under the 1958 Rules, whereas the appellants were promoted under the 2001 Rules.
• The seniority of direct recruits had to be determined from the date of their formal appointment and training.

Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the seniority list prepared by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Court held that:

• The appellants were not entitled to claim seniority over direct recruits who were appointed under the regular selection process.
• Appointments to Fast Track Courts were purely temporary and could not be considered for regular seniority determination.
• Seniority in judicial service is determined by the nature of appointment and not merely by the date of joining.

The Court concluded that the inter-se dispute between promotees and direct recruits must be resolved based on the applicable rules and past precedents.

With this judgment, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the principles of judicial service appointments and clarified the distinction between temporary and regular appointments, ensuring fairness in the career progression of judicial officers.

Impact of the Judgment

The decision has significant implications for judicial officers across the country. It sets a precedent that judicial service seniority cannot be altered based on temporary appointments. The ruling ensures that regular appointments through prescribed selection procedures are not undermined by ad hoc postings.

This case highlights the importance of adhering to established recruitment and promotion norms, protecting the rights of direct recruits, and preventing arbitrary seniority claims by temporary appointees.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: V. Venkata Prasad & vs High Court of A.P. & Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-06-2016-1741872390983.pdf